MANOJ PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since pleadings are complete, record of ceiling proceeding is also available, therefore, with the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally.

(2.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dtd. 31/1/2022 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the competent authority/respondent No.2 whereby the authority rejected their application preferred under Sec. 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short the 'Act, 1999') for declaring the proceeding initiated by the respondents abated in respect of vesting the land of original owner in the State under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act, 1976').

(3.) The facts of the case in short are that respondent No.2 for declaring the land of original owners namely Buddhulal Patel and Panchamlal Patel to be surplus, instituted a case under the provisions of the Act, 1976 which got registered as Case No.217/A-90(B-9)/81-82. Since the said proceeding was initiated only against Buddhulal Patel, therefore, he not only objected the same but also denied vesting of land in the State Government saying that he is not holding any surplus land. While objecting to the said proceeding, Buddhulal Patel also said that the land owned by him is an agricultural land and does not fall within the purview of the Act, 1976 and as such, the provisions of the Act, 1976 are not applicable upon his land and, therefore, the proceeding initiated by the respondent/Authority deserves to be dropped. However, the authority after proceeding in the matter, declared the land owned by Buddhulal Patel to the extent of 9785.37 square meters to be surplus; published a draft statement under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1976 and a notification in the official gazette as per the requirement of Sec. 10(1) of the Act, 1976.